While the standard does stop short of requiring a record, it does state:

That's pretty hard to do without documented evidence. I certainly don't think it would be a bad thing to add required record(s) of this.

Following that logic, any time an organization doesn't meet a requirement, the auditor might provide consulting. However, if an auditor does provide consulting they're going out of bounds for their role.

Agreed, except the PEAR report has to be completed by the AS auditor before it has to be completed by the auditee.

Agreed, except the PEAR report has to be completed by the AS auditor before it has to be completed by the auditee.

But the auditee doesn't have to complete it at all. Just like they don't have to complete the OER, QMS Process Matrix, NCR forms, Audit Report, etc. The PEAR is a tool for the auditor to record evidence of something that has been required since 2000.

But the auditee doesn't have to complete it at all. Just like they don't have to complete the OER, QMS Process Matrix, NCR forms, Audit Report, etc. The PEAR is a tool for the auditor to record evidence of something that has been required since 2000.

howste,

Sorry for not being clear on this.

PEAR is a new record that should exist before the auditor arrives.

Auditee managers are responsible for ensuring their processes are effective but many will not have recorded the results of their assessments using the PEAR format.

Instead of requiring this the auditor will make this record for them. Where the record shows a bad assessment the auditee will have the auditor's advice in the form of a completed PEAR.

I think they call this line of questioning "leading the witness".

Whatever it is called the AS auditor will be advising and losing independence.

If you are referring to the Phase 2 Revision to AS 9100 Rev C thread that you started, you clearly stated a revision to AS9100 was in the works, which, as I replied in the thread, is years away. I clearly said (and it is on the record) that a revision to AS9101 was likely and is forthcoming. The 9101 group met in New Orleans during the last IAQG meeting and a revision is underway. You are committing the mistake of making this personal. I come here to exchange ideas, opinions and facts. It just so happens that I have been a member of the AAQG for a decade now and a member of the Leadership Team for a couple. So, I do see first hand the deliberations and the good intentions behind many of the changes. However, I have been in the management system conformity assessment business for over 20 years and I also know the mindset of MANY (not all) CB auditors that will DELIBERATELY refuse to change their ways, despite training, feedback, write-ups, etc...Many (not all) auditors working for CB's don't believe rules should apply to them, don't like to be questioned about their knowledge and (God forbid) their interpretations. Case in point: Why there are so many organizations out there scrambling to identify their QMS processes and explain how they monitor them? That has been a requirement of ISO 9001 since the 3rd Edition, published over 10 years ago. Why do we have requirements in the standard that are totally neglected and auditors never write them up? Simply because the auditor does not understand the requirement either.

When AS9100B (ISO 9001:2000-based) came about, there was a statistical analysis of the non-conformities being written up against that version of the standard and compared against the AS9100A (ISO 9001:1994-based) write-ups. Some people reached a conclusion that organizations were failing to move away from the elemental approach of a QMS to a process-based approach. My conclusion was different; in my estimation, the write ups were similar simply because AUDITORS will stick to their comfort zone. After all is so much easier to find obsolete documents being used, gages with expired calibration being used, a stamp missing on a traveler, etc...Where are the gutsy auditors that are courageous and competent enough to issue non-conformities against top management for disregarding customer feedback and failing to provide resources? They are a minority in the ICOP process. Unfortunately, the criteria for one to become an AEA allowed too many people who worked 3 or 4 decades in quality control to qualify as an auditor. Not their fault, but many of them will NEVER understand the big Q and big M in QMS. They are uncomfortable auditing outside of the shop floor. So, AS9101D and the associated AATT is an attempt to make it clear that high-performance, added-value audits have to be done in different way.

I will respond to the well thought out paper Bradley posted on another thread soon, but please don't take my feedback as personal response. At least is not intended that way.

I come here to keep the perspective about the ICOP Scheme "fair and balanced".

Wow; an exceptional and true response from Sidney. I have only been involved with AS9100 for the past four years but have experienced your exact comments with auditors and top managment. When is top management going to buy in to the real advantages of the Standard instead of lip service when the third party auditor is present? I live and breath the Standard in my efforts to improve our company processes yet during the last Management Review we held I was told by the CEO in the presence of all at the review to stop encouraging discussion, hurry up and move on so we can "get this thing over with". The same CEO who will receive nonconformities under AS9100C but will blame his "Management Representative", and those who worked to develop the QMS rather than holding himself and top management responsible. Until organizations see this Standard as a benefit to quality, I doubt much will change.

Auditee managers are responsible for ensuring their processes are effective but many will not have recorded the results of their assessments using the PEAR format.

Instead of requiring this the auditor will make this record for them. Where the record shows a bad assessment the auditee will have the auditor's advice in the form of a completed PEAR.

I think they call this line of questioning "leading the witness".

Whatever it is called the AS auditor will be advising and losing independence.

John

Sorry I missed your response before. I'll reply with what I said recently in another thread:

Quote:

In Reply to Parent Post byhowste

...auditors are not allowed to consult with audit clients. PEAR form block 11 asks for the "Organization's method for determining process effectiveness." If the organization doesn't have a method, then the auditor should state that the organization has no method, not make something up. When they write a nonconformity, they can't tell the organization what they need to do. They should tell them that they're required to have a method to monitor and/or measure the process that demonstrates its effectiveness, and take action if the process is ineffective. The organization is required to determine their own actions, just as they are for any other audit nonconformity.

The situation of raising NCR due to non existence of perfomance measurement criteria will rarely happen,if phase-1 audit is done correctly.If you notice point #24 APPENDIX F – AUDIT REPORT (Stage 1),it needs information on performance related to quality and OTD.So there is no chance of surprise in Phase-2 audit.

It may happen only there was no phase 1 audit and the client is transitioning from Rev.B.However,the requirement is not a new requirement.